Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:36:18AM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote:
> (dropping debian-devel, this is really not a technical issue)
>
> Matt Zimmerman wrote on 17/01/2006 20:44:
> > 1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherited from Debian
> > unchanged (example: tetex-base).
>
> False. They are changed through recompilation. So let's assume you are
> talking about the source part only.
Well, yes, that's why I wrote "source packages".
> Then the problem is that they aren't automatically updated as soon as
> their Debian counterpart is updated. So a Debian maintainer has no way to
> fix the package in Ubuntu.
During roughly the first half of each release cycle, they are.
> > Given the above, the relevant questions would seem to be:
> >
> > If a binary package is built by a third party from unmodified Debian
> > sources, should its Maintainer field be kept the same as the source
> > package, or set to the name and address of the third party?
>
> I would prefer to see it set to the name and address of the third party,
> but I would accept it if a majority says this is not needed.
>
> > Should Debian-derived distributions change the Maintainer field in source
> > packages which are modified relative to Debian? If so, should this be
> > done in all cases, or only if the modifications are non-trivial?
>
> Definitely: Yes, they should, in either case. Simply for the reason that
> even seemingly trivial changes can introduce new bugs. Apart from the
> fact that a change which seems trivial to one person doesn't need to
> seem trivial to another.
Thanks for your opinions.
--
- mdz
Reply to: